On Dec 1, 2008, at 9:09 AM, Stefan Seyfried <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 01:57:01PM -0600, Victor Lowther wrote: >>> On Sat, 2008-11-29 at 16:53 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: >>>> The acpi_sleep parameter is a documented kernel interface and many >>>> people currently rely upon it. It's not reasonable to override it. >>> How many rely on it vs. rely on HAL to do The Right Thing? >> >> I have no idea. It's existed longer than pm-utils has. > > People who want to use acpi_sleep= kernel parameter can still do > that - but > not in combination with pm-utils (or s2ram for the matter, since it > also > clears the flag since quite some time). > > Which is a good idea IMVHO, the bug reports I have got have shown > this to be a > quite sensible approach. And with autoquirk support, it is dead simple for users who rely on the acpi sleep stuff to generate a .fdi file for their hardware. > > And yes, hopefully this will all be soon over when the kernel does > all the > video resume (and then we can push the bugs to the kernel > developers ;) > -- > Stefan Seyfried > R&D Team Mobile Devices | "Any ideas, John?" > SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Nürnberg | "Well, surrounding them's out." > > This footer brought to you by insane German lawmakers: > SUSE Linux Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) > _______________________________________________ > Pm-utils mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils _______________________________________________ Pm-utils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
